4 ms·
Cost is a really solid argument against MSSQL. Even at Azure, MSSQL costs ~6x as much as the open-source databases. For even relatively small workloads, it's no
by runako 6y ago
Cost is a really solid argument against MSSQL. Even at Azure, MSSQL costs ~6x as much as the open-source databases. For even relatively small workloads, it's not hard for the MSSQL license to cost as much as an FTE.
Aside from the raw cost, the licensing model and cost considerations can drive design decisions. In my experience, most shops that use MSSQL do so because nobody on staff has experience with other databases.
- matwood 6y agoSure, but we're talking about enterprises. Back when I could walk down the hall to the datacenter, paying $30k for the hardware and $60k for licenses was normal. Every time I bought a new server I tried to make a case for pg or mysql, but the cost to replace SSIS, SSAS, or SSRS either with another product or to build a replacement was always more.
- tomnipotent 6y ago> Cost is a really solid argument against MSSQL If you're a small 2-5 person team, sure. But once dev payroll breaks $1M/yr, paying ~$100k for SQL Server doesn't seem so bad anymore.
- runako 6y agoThat doesn't match the economics at any company I've seen. Dev payroll of $1mm/yr gets you something like 6 devs or fewer in the US. I have yet to encounter a team that would rather have SQL Server than another developer given the explicit choice between the two (assuming easy migration, etc.).